Political experiment wants YOU!

[loosecannon]

This thread is an experiment.

It's goal is to recruit polarized posters around an issue on which no concensus can be reached and test that impasse.

The way to test the impasse is to challenge every poster who signs up and agrees to the game to reach a concensus on a controversial topic within 7 days. No excuses.

If concensus is reached everybody wins, if not everybody loses.

There are no particiants yet, but I will sign on.

There is no topic selected yet.

With the polarization our nation is experiencing I am curious if we can work together if we have to.

Can we do this?

[Doniston]

This thread is an experiment.

It's goal is to recruit polarized posters around an issue on which no concensus can be reached and test that impasse.

The way to test the impasse is to challenge every poster who signs up and agrees to the game to reach a concensus on a controversial topic within 7 days. No excuses.

If concensus is reached everybody wins, if not everybody loses.

There are no particiants yet, but I will sign on.

There is no topic selected yet.

With the polarization our nation is experiencing I am curious if we can work together if we have to.

Can we do this?yah, I guess we can all learn to whistle "Dixie" :rolleyes:










HEH HEH

[LOki]

Sounds like fun.

Particularly if we all lose, we all have to do shots.

[Mr. P]

I think there should be a topic first.

[loosecannon]

I think there should be a topic first.

there will be

feel free to suggest something

[Mr. P]

Tis your experiment. Depending on the topic I'll decide if I want in or not.

[5stringJeff]

I like LOki's idea! :D

Topic: abortion.

[loosecannon]

I like LOki's idea! :D

Topic: abortion.

I did too. Abortion would be fine. It may be too broadly stated. Maybe Roe v Wade would be more refined.
We need to find concensus so we need to know exactly what the question is.

[Doniston]

I did too. Abortion would be fine. It may be too broadly stated. Maybe Roe v Wade would be more refined.
We need to find concensus so we need to know exactly what the question is. Ok, here are some target issues

1. Abortion, Murder or not --won't work those who sy it's murder are not about to change.
2. and the rest, would only equate if you left out the ones who beleiv it is murder.

the only thing I can think of where theremight (repeat) MIGHT be a concensus is when it is a new life. or if it is a thing.

[loosecannon]

Ok, here are some target issues

1. Abortion, Murder or not --won't work those who sy it's murder are not about to change.
2. and the rest, would only equate if you left out the ones who beleiv it is murder.

the only thing I can think of where theremight (repeat) MIGHT be a concensus is when it is a new life. or if it is a thing.


well agreeing to an ideological tenet isn't very useful. It doesn't address the challenges of democracy in the midst of conflict.

Topics like abortion: legal/illegal along what lines

Iraq war: withdraw/add troops, how, when

Illegal immigration: we need a policy

Global warming: we need a policy

Real world issues in which our ability to compromise for the good of the nation is the only solution are what I was hoping for.

[Kathianne]

Ok, here are some target issues

1. Abortion, Murder or not --won't work those who sy it's murder are not about to change.
2. and the rest, would only equate if you left out the ones who beleiv it is murder.

the only thing I can think of where theremight (repeat) MIGHT be a concensus is when it is a new life. or if it is a thing.

I would think about where legality should be determined, IF Roe v Wade were overturned.

[Hagbard Celine]

I would think about where legality should be determined, IF Roe v Wade were overturned.

I think the legality would be determined on a state-by-state basis. I think the founders' original intent was for the US to be more like the European Union than like it is currently. Less federal cohesion, more state independence--but of course a tighter unity as a whole than the EU--that was just an example. Like in Amsterdam people can smoke reefer legally, but in Germany they can't. That sort of thing.

[loosecannon]

I would think about where legality should be determined, IF Roe v Wade were overturned.

can you frame that into a question we could try to reach concensus on?

[Mr. P]

Maybe ...Congressional term limits..good or bad?

[darin]

This thing is beyond my intellectual capacity

[Doniston]

well agreeing to an ideological tenet isn't very useful. It doesn't address the challenges of democracy in the midst of conflict.

Topics like abortion: legal/illegal along what lines

Iraq war: withdraw/add troops, how, when

Illegal immigration: we need a policy

Global warming: we need a policy

Real world issues in which our ability to compromise for the good of the nation is the only solution are what I was hoping for. The first two won't work, too red flaggy .

the third? somewhat dubious,

the fourth is the most likely.

[Doniston]

I would think about where legality should be determined, IF Roe v Wade were overturned. I think thsat line would be at what point it is dtermined to be a human being.

And frankly, I think R V Wade is much ado about nothing, and means very little. it is what the satates do which is the determining factors. Like Same-Sex marriage. 'course that's just MY opinion. You may agree (if you wish) HEH HEH.

[loosecannon]

Maybe ...Congressional term limits..good or bad?

That would be an easy one.

I will sign on and try it out.

Anybody else?

[Doniston]

can you frame that into a question we could try to reach concensus on?

Allow me to offer:


Baring rape, incess, age, and emergency conditions, to what point of gestation should abortions be allowed at the choice of the parent? (note. I did not say Mother)

[LOki]

Allow me to offer:


Baring emergency conditions, to what point of gestation should abortions be allowed at the choice of the parent? (note. I did not say Mother)I'll take the most difficult position: 49th trimester. Seriously.

[Mr. P]

This thing is beyond my intellectual capacity

For some, yes.

[loosecannon]

For some, yes.

Indeed.

ATTENTION EVERYBODY

We are gonna try to do an experiment here. An experiment in democracy, concensus building and compromise.

We will sign up folks interested in playing and we will all agree to try to reach a compromise on an issue within 7 days.

Lets just say that we HAVE to decide within 7 days to pass a bill that sets term limits for senators at two and congress critters at three and this a constituitional amendment, meaning it will prob be a permanent change to our law.

I will sign on to play.

If we can reach a concensus we all win.

If we can not reach a concensus we all lose.

Everybody is welcome. Anybody down?

[Doniston]

I'll take the most difficult position: 49th trimester. Seriously. It is obvious that you also don't know the meaning of the word Seriously "Seriously"

[Mr. P]

Indeed.

ATTENTION EVERYBODY

We are gonna try to do an experiment here. An experiment in democracy, concensus building and compromise.

We will sign up folks interested in playing and we will all agree to try to reach a compromise on an issue within 7 days.

Lets just say that we HAVE to decide within 7 days to pass a bill that sets term limits for senators at two and congress critters at three and this a constituitional amendment, meaning it will prob be a permanent change to our law.

I will sign on to play.

If we can reach a concensus we all win.

If we can not reach a concensus we all lose.

Everybody is welcome. Anybody down?

I am in on that.

[loosecannon]

I am in on that.

Cool Mr. P, that is two.

[nevadamedic]

Indeed.

ATTENTION EVERYBODY

We are gonna try to do an experiment here. An experiment in democracy, concensus building and compromise.

We will sign up folks interested in playing and we will all agree to try to reach a compromise on an issue within 7 days.

Lets just say that we HAVE to decide within 7 days to pass a bill that sets term limits for senators at two and congress critters at three and this a constituitional amendment, meaning it will prob be a permanent change to our law.

I will sign on to play.

If we can reach a concensus we all win.

If we can not reach a concensus we all lose.

Everybody is welcome. Anybody down?

Ok.

[loosecannon]

Ok.

That's 3, and welcome to the experiment

[5stringJeff]

me 2

[LOki]

It is obvious that you also don't know the meaning of the word Seriously "Seriously"You're wrong. Again.

[jimnyc]

Count me in, someone just let me know when we begin!

[loosecannon]

Count me in, someone just let me know when we begin!

That is 5

Mr P, Meself, Nevada medic, 5stringJeff, And JimmyC.

maybe we should wait about another day for folks to sign on.

[Mr. P]

That is 5

Mr P, Meself, Nevada medic, 5stringJeff, And JimmyC.

maybe we should wait about another day for folks to sign on.

Good idea..I may need to drop out..I may be moving soon and don't have a clue when I'll have a net connection again.

[manu1959]

i will play

[loosecannon]

i will play

outstanding!

[Doniston]

That is 5

Mr P, Meself, Nevada medic, 5stringJeff, And JimmyC.

maybe we should wait about another day for folks to sign on. Has the question (subject) been determined? I must have missed that. I didn't see anything definite.

[loosecannon]

Has the question (subject) been determined? I must have missed that. I didn't see anything definite.

Term limits, yes or no, 2 terms for a senator, three for a house rep.

[Doniston]

Term limits, yes or no, 2 terms for a senator, three for a house rep. Ok, I'll join, and my response is no. the people of the state have the right to elect whoever they chose for office. regardless of how many times.

But I don't really think you will develop a concensus,

[TheStripey1]

Sounds like fun.

Particularly if we all lose, we all have to do shots.

Rum... I suggest rum... yarrrrrrrrrrr...harr harrr...

[TheStripey1]

This thing is beyond my intellectual capacity

They haven't even solidified the question and you're already giving up?

:cheers2: :poke: :cheers2:

I liked loki's idea of shots... I say we have rum shots... what say ye?

[TheStripey1]

well... since we can't have a consensus on what to drink, I'll give this political consensus thing a whirl... just for the fun of it...

:dance:

sayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy, how about we add in the president? 1- 6 year term...

[Mr. P]

Rum? Damn pussy...cat!:laugh2:

[manu1959]

Term limits, yes or no, 2 terms for a senator, three for a house rep.

agree.....

[5stringJeff]

Term limits, yes or no, 2 terms for a senator, three for a house rep.

I'd say 3 for a senator (18 years), 10 for a Rep (for 20 years). I don't mind senators and/or reps having long careers, and frankly, some longevity in the government is OK. These term limits would allow quality politicians (I know, that's probably an oxymoron) to serve for a decent amount of time, but get rid of the 'old coots' like Byrd and Kennedy.

[TheStripey1]

I'd say 3 for a senator (18 years), 10 for a Rep (for 20 years). I don't mind senators and/or reps having long careers, and frankly, some longevity in the government is OK. These term limits would allow quality politicians (I know, that's probably an oxymoron) to serve for a decent amount of time, but get rid of the 'old coots' like Byrd and Kennedy.

and McCain... don't forget McCain... there's another old coot... laffs

[TheStripey1]

Rum? Damn pussy...cat!:laugh2:

Tiger, Mr. Pee... Tiger...

Doncha like rum?

Here's my favorite and if there's a Beverages and More near you, it's currently on sale... just twenny bux...

http://www.877spirits.com/store/images/large/9301.jpg

Yarrrrrrrr Harrrr Harrrrrrr

[loosecannon]

OK it looks like we have on board:

Manu
5stringJeff
JimmyC
Stripey
Nevadamedic
Myself
and maybe Mr P

Did I leave anybody out?

What do you say we get started tommorrow at noon and give ourselves until the following thursday at noon to reach concensus?

And as far as inputs about the actual question I just pulled 2 senate terms and 3 congressional terms outta my ass. We have till tommorrow AM to get a strict question agreed between us.

Lastly ANYBODY else who wants to play, c'mon in!!

[Yurt]

Well since you have not told me "to go to hell" today, I consider you on the way to rehabilitating yourself, so I will be in on this alone:


Term limits, yes or no, 2 terms for a senator, three for a house rep.

While I think you are silly and an insulter, you do bring interesting things to the board. Let the "game" begin.

[loosecannon]

Well since you have not told me "to go to hell" today, I consider you on the way to rehabilitating yourself, so I will be in on this alone:



While I think you are silly and an insulter, you do bring interesting things to the board. Let the "game" begin.

OK, then we have:

Manu
5stringJeff
JimmyC
Stripey
Nevadamedic
Myself
Yurt
and maybe Mr P

on board.

I am thinking maybe we begin tommorry at noon and leave the door open for a day or two for new folks to join. But not too many. I was kinda thinking 8-10 would be challenging enough.

Thoughts? Input?

[Doniston]

OK it looks like we have on board:

Manu
5stringJeff
JimmyC
Stripey
Nevadamedic
Myself
and maybe Mr P

Did I leave anybody out?

What do you say we get started tommorrow at noon and give ourselves until the following thursday at noon to reach concensus?

And as far as inputs about the actual question I just pulled 2 senate terms and 3 congressional terms outta my ass. We have till tommorrow AM to get a strict question agreed between us.

Lastly ANYBODY else who wants to play, c'mon in!! I already said I was in.

[Yurt]

OK, then we have:

Manu
5stringJeff
JimmyC
Stripey
Nevadamedic
Myself
Yurt
and maybe Mr P

on board.

I am thinking maybe we begin tommorry at noon and leave the door open for a day or two for new folks to join. But not too many. I was kinda thinking 8-10 would be challenging enough.

Thoughts? Input?


Part of your goal/experiment was consensus... The more people as you know....

Your experiment....

Alumimoney....

[loosecannon]

I already said I was in.

Manu
5stringJeff
JimmyC
Stripey
Nevadamedic
Myself
Yurt
and maybe Mr P
and Doniston

[Birdzeye]

LC - I hadn't opted in until now because frankly I was pessemistic that your experiment could work. Now I realize that it just might work IF, and that's a big IF, we avoid the hot button issues that have people hollering and screaming at each other (like abortion), and IF the hotheads amongst us (won't name names) are not participating.

So far, the people who have signed up seem to be a bunch who could, indeed, pull off coming to a consensus on something. So count me as a "maybe." I'll watch and put in my $0.02 worth if I think I can help.

[loosecannon]

LC - I hadn't opted in until now because frankly I was pessemistic that your experiment could work. Now I realize that it just might work IF, and that's a big IF, we avoid the hot button issues that have people hollering and screaming at each other (like abortion), and IF the hotheads amongst us (won't name names) are not participating.

So far, the people who have signed up seem to be a bunch who could, indeed, pull off coming to a consensus on something. So count me as a "maybe." I'll watch and put in my $0.02 worth if I think I can help.


Well it is all up to you Birdz. But being stuck with a group that can not reach concensus is as valid as not.

And having members drop in or out once we get locked in the jury chambers kinda throws the game.

I think this issue will be a cake walk.

I am looking forward to the ones that appear impossible from the onset. We might surprise ourselves.

[loosecannon]

Let the games begin

Our participants are:

Manu
5stringJeff
JimmyC
Stripey
Nevadamedic
Myself
Yurt
and maybe Mr P
and Doniston
and maybe Birdz

We are gonna get started and allow a few days for those on the fence to opt in/out and others to join.

The topic is:

Term limits in the federal congress

two terms for a senator
three for a rep

Yes or NO

We will conclude at noon next thursday by either reaching concensus or not.

The idea is that without concensus democracy is paralyzed.

So neccessity dictates concensus to advance anything other than the status quo.

[loosecannon]

I will begin

I used to be for term limits for a few years, then rejected the idea for about 15, now I am for them.

There is no good choice. Term limits allow officials to be unaccountable during their lame duck term.

Single terms remove any accountability. Without an active recall anyway.

But I have had it with the career politicians. Enough is enough.

12 years is it. But I might be persuaded.....

[jimnyc]

I guess I'm going to have to say YES to term limits as well. It's been far too long since I've seen a career politician actually continue to work in the best interest of the people after a lengthy career. Not saying it doesn't happen, but all too infrequently in my opinion. I can probably see both sides of this debate, but my ink isn't going to allow a "name" to be kept in politics for 30-50 years!

[5stringJeff]

The topic is:

Term limits in the federal congress

two terms for a senator
three for a rep

Yes or NO

Yes to term limits, but not this restrictive. As I posted before:

I'd say 3 for a senator (18 years), 10 for a Rep (for 20 years). I don't mind senators and/or reps having long careers, and frankly, some longevity in the government is OK. These term limits would allow quality politicians (I know, that's probably an oxymoron) to serve for a decent amount of time, but get rid of the 'old coots' like Byrd and Kennedy.

[Mr. P]

I’m for limits. How many years is the question. Too short a term and there is not enough time to learn the ropes. To long and we have the same as now. 10-12 yrs max seems reasonable to me.

On the other hand, if we had limits would that mean the raping of the public would just happen faster? Sorry to muddy the water already, just a thought. Maybe it’s not the term that’s a problem, but the folks we elect. Damn.

Then maybe with limits we would attract those who truly want to server vs those who only want to make politics a career.

Then again, we won’t know unless we try. I’m still for limits at this point.

[jimnyc]

BTW - as long as we are temporarily in office, I say we vote to give ourselves some raises! :)

[Mr. P]

BTW - as long as we are temporarily in office, I say we vote to give ourselves some raises! :)

Non-issue they do that now.

[Doniston]

Non-issue they do that now. I am definitely in the minority at the moment. I am opposed to telling the voters that they can not elect a person, because they have already served for such and such a time. What you have to do in create incentives to attract more and better applicants.

[5stringJeff]

I am definitely in the minority at the moment. I am opposed to telling the voters that they can not elect a person, because they have already served for such and such a time. What you have to do in create incentives to attract more and better applicants.

There are doznes, if not hundreds, of state-level legislators who wuld love a shot at being in Congress. That would not wane with term limits. Congressional service would become part of a political resume.

[Doniston]

There are doznes, if not hundreds, of state-level legislators who wuld love a shot at being in Congress. That would not wane with term limits. Congressional service would become part of a political resume. then they should be running for US seats. rather than state.

[5stringJeff]

then they should be running for US seats. rather than state.

There aren't that many seats.

[Mr. P]

I am definitely in the minority at the moment. I am opposed to telling the voters that they can not elect a person, because they have already served for such and such a time. What you have to do in create incentives to attract more and better applicants.

The President is term limited and with good reason IMO.
Why should Congress not be?

[Yurt]

Let the games begin


The topic is:

Term limits in the federal congress

two terms for a senator
three for a rep

Yes or NO

.




Amendment 17 - Senators Elected by Popular Vote. Ratified 4/8/1913. History

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.


Not only is the ability to vote enshrined in this amendment, but it has been declared a "fundamental" right and anything interfering with this right must pass the strictest scrutiny.

There should be no term limits. This directly affects my right to vote. The reason we have the president 2 term limit is because we were "afraid" of reverting back to our english roots by effectively having the president be a "king" because he could continually be reelected. It was Roosevelt's three term that sparked this fear.

This fear is unfounded and has no proof other than mere speculation that it "might" happen. And if so, then the voters utilizing their fundamental right to vote, have their president, not king.

Senate/Congress

I believe the same way. We have a constitutional and a fundamental right to vote for who we "want." This right is taken away by term limits. As Loose pointed out, term limits do in fact create what is commonly known as a "lame duck" session. For the president, you can bet world leaders/enemies know this. For the president, IMHO it has been a disaster. The same thing will happen with our senate/congress. I don't care if someone is a life time politician. Guess what, he/she is doing something right because they keep getting the vote.

[manu1959]

term limits =change.....change is good....frsh perspective fresh ideas....

or

same old same old

that said maybe 2-3 terms then you have to go work for a living...2-3 terms.....then get re-elected.....

lifers are out of touch with reality.....

[Yurt]

term limits =change.....change is good....frsh perspective fresh ideas....

or

same old same old

that said maybe 2-3 terms then you have to go work for a living...2-3 terms.....then get re-elected.....

lifers are out of touch with reality.....


So it is not up to the voters at the election, but rather to the elected officials to determine the amount of time.... that the elected official.... gets to be elected?

[Doniston]

The President is term limited and with good reason IMO.
Why should Congress not be? #What good reason would that be?, tho I really don't see what it has to do with the issue.

[Doniston]

[QUOTE=manu1959;65774]


that said maybe 2-3 terms then you have to go work for a living...2-3 terms.....then get re-elected.....

QUOTE] Please explain the above.

[Mr. P]

#What good reason would that be?, tho I really don't see what it has to do with the issue.

Longevity does result in accumulated power.

Power is in fact is the root of the problem. IMO

Back to consensus.

[Yurt]

Longevity does result in accumulated power.

Power is in fact is the root of the problem. IMO

Back to consensus.

Mr. P:

How do you view your constitutional and fundamental right to vote?

A step further:

I know you believe in your right, that being, what right is there to "limit" one's vote?

Yurt

[Mr. P]

Mr. P:

How do you view your constitutional and fundamental right to vote?

A step further:

I know you believe in your right, that being, what right is there to "limit" one's vote?

Yurt

This is not about a right to vote but about term limits.

[Yurt]

This is not about a right to vote but about term limits.

So there are limits to your right to vote?

[Mr. P]

So there are limits to your right to vote?

Indeed...you have no right to vote for the President..check er out...ain't in the Constitution.. Now about limits...

[Yurt]

Indeed...you have no right to vote for the President..check er out...ain't in the Constitution.. Now about limits...

We aren't talking about the president....

What about fundamental rights...

[Mr. P]

We aren't talking about the president....

What about fundamental rights...

We do have right to vote, but that is NOT what the thread is about.

Do yo have a case to present on term limits? Go for it.

[loosecannon]

Well Yurt and Donistan appear to be opposed while JimmyC, 5stringJeff, myself and Mr P and Manu are in favor of limiting terms.

Suppose for the sake of inspection that each senator was limited to one term as was each house member.

The flaw would be no accountability based on no possibility to face the electorate again.

And suppose there are no limits and an official can run indefinitely. He is held accountable to the voters sort of.

But in that case he also MUST strive to get elected again to maintain his job, increase his power, experience, seniority etc.

He also needs money. So his entire term be it 4 years or 30 is spent beholden not only to voters but to contributors. That is not really democracy.

In my heart I think each member of congress should be limited to one term only. Let them run for some other office if they wish. But no seniority, no elected officials in office beholden to contributors.

The lame duck element is troubling but not as much as selling representation to campaign contributors.

[Yurt]

We do have right to vote, but that is NOT what the thread is about.

Do yo have a case to present on term limits? Go for it.

Aren't term limits about the vote? If you tell me I can only for for X this amount Y times, then you are directly talking about my right to vote for X.

How do you seperate the right to vote with term limits?

[Yurt]

Well Yurt and Donistan appear to be opposed while JimmyC, 5stringJeff, myself and Mr P and Manu are in favor of limiting terms.

Suppose for the sake of inspection that each senator was limited to one term as was each house member.

The flaw would be no accountability based on no possibility to face the electorate again.

And suppose there are no limits and an official can run indefinitely. He is held accountable to the voters sort of.

But in that case he also MUST strive to get elected again to maintain his job, increase his power, experience, seniority etc.

He also needs money. So his entire term be it 4 years or 30 is spent beholden not only to voters but to contributors. That is not really democracy.

In my heart I think each member of congress should be limited to one term only. Let them run for some other office if they wish. But no seniority, no elected officials in office beholden to contributors.

The lame duck element is troubling but not as much as selling representation to campaign contributors.

So democracy has limits... And so does your vote... For you will be FORCED to vote for someone you MAY not wish to. And we are a republic, but the the "game" is about "choice" in voting.

The limit, necessarily, forces your vote for someone other than who you would vote for.

With limits, where is the choice? Where?

[loosecannon]

So democracy has limits... And so does your vote... For you will be FORCED to vote for someone you MAY not wish to. And we are a republic, but the the "game" is about "choice" in voting.

The limit, necessarily, forces your vote for someone other than who you would vote for.

With limits, where is the choice? Where?

The two party system limits your rights 100's of 1000's of times more so than term limits.

You can't vote for folks who are too young, or who are dead, or who are not citizens (well you can, but they can't get elected).

Then again Yurt vote for whomever you want. Term limits just says that there are limits to who can be elected.

Fair enough?:laugh2:

[Yurt]

The two party system limits your rights 100's of 1000's of times more so than term limits.

You can't vote for folks who are too young, or who are dead, or who are not citizens (well you can, but they can't get elected).

Then again Yurt vote for whomever you want. Term limits just says that there are limits to who can be elected.

Fair enough?:laugh2:

Thus, your vote is limited?

Not sure why that is funny.....

[loosecannon]

Thus, your vote is limited?

Not sure why that is funny.....

Because your votes are already limited, and your point rested on the sin of term limits limiting votes only a fraction of the existing limits.

But the funny part is you can still vote for folks who by law can not be elected.

[5stringJeff]

Yurt, your selection for President is already limited. For example, you can no longer vote for either Bill Clinton or George W. Bush. So while I understand your point, I disagree that term limits are an unacceptable limitation on your right to vote. We have already accepted one such limit; I believe limits on serving in Congress would serve a similar purpose.

LC, I stand by my proposition of 3 terms for senators and 10 for representatives.

[loosecannon]

LC, I stand by my proposition of 3 terms for senators and 10 for representatives.


So your goal is merely to keep the immortals out of those offices?

20 years to me sounds like far too long. I am battling whether 4 or 6 or 8 or twelve is the opportune number.

Somebody (I think it was you) made a point that those guys are still eligible for other offices.

Even with single term limits across the board a candy could still ascend 4 years in a state house to a state senate for 6 more, then get elected to a single House of reps term for 4 and then to the US Senate to cap a 20 year legislative career.

That is plenty of time in a rep career. IMO.

[5stringJeff]

So your goal is merely to keep the immortals out of those offices?

20 years to me sounds like far too long. I am battling whether 4 or 6 or 8 or twelve is the opportune number.

Somebody (I think it was you) made a point that those guys are still eligible for other offices.

Even with single term limits across the board a candy could still ascend 4 years in a state house to a state senate for 6 more, then get elected to a single House of reps term for 4 and then to the US Senate to cap a 20 year legislative career.

That is plenty of time in a rep career. IMO.

OK, 18-20 years may be too long, but a single term is bad, for the reasons you listed - no accountability. Not to mention the lack of longevity. Reps would spend half of their lame-duck session trying to learn the ropes.

I'd say two terms (12 years) in the Senate, 5 terms (10 years) in the house.

[loosecannon]

OK, 18-20 years may be too long, but a single term is bad, for the reasons you listed - no accountability. Not to mention the lack of longevity. Reps would spend half of their lame-duck session trying to learn the ropes.

I'd say two terms (12 years) in the Senate, 5 terms (10 years) in the house.

Jeff, as a side issue: when you speak of "learning the ropes" isn't that almost all about learning the personalities and political games that inundate the institution?

I actually think that the founders intended less of that and more of imperfect reps simply acting on behalf of their constituents in a less constipated arena.

Doesn't much of that political web exist because of longevity? And of course lobbyists?

A single term would remove lobbyists from a role inside the beltway.

[Doniston]

let me throw this in.

Suppose they changed the rule to have both Reps and senators be elected to four year terms, and allowed two terms each? (8 years?)

[loosecannon]

let me throw this in.

Suppose they changed the rule to have both Reps and senators be elected to four year terms, and allowed two terms each? (8 years?)

Well we have all reached relative agreement with the exception of Yurt.

8 years vs 12 is a minor issue.

I wanna try term limits and see what happens. It sure works for presidents.

Need I say that Clinton might be on his fourth term without them?

[Mr. P]

OK, 18-20 years may be too long, but a single term is bad, for the reasons you listed - no accountability. Not to mention the lack of longevity. Reps would spend half of their lame-duck session trying to learn the ropes.

I'd say two terms (12 years) in the Senate, 5 terms (10 years) in the house.

I agree with this.

[Yurt]

Because your votes are already limited, and your point rested on the sin of term limits limiting votes only a fraction of the existing limits.

But the funny part is you can still vote for folks who by law can not be elected.

Just because my vote is already limited does not make "limits" right. The two party system is really the result of voters. Sure, some states mandate it, I disagree with those states, but the result is largely because that is what voters feel comfortable with.

[Yurt]

Yurt, your selection for President is already limited. For example, you can no longer vote for either Bill Clinton or George W. Bush. So while I understand your point, I disagree that term limits are an unacceptable limitation on your right to vote. We have already accepted one such limit; I believe limits on serving in Congress would serve a similar purpose.

LC, I stand by my proposition of 3 terms for senators and 10 for representatives.

I am not sure of your reasoning here. You seem to understand my point and yet disagree that term limits are an unacceptable limitation on the right to vote. From the post it looks like you are justifying your reasoning because we already have accepted on such limit.

I don't believe that just because something is already "accepted" or "the rule" that it necessarily makes it right. As I stated before, I don't agree with the limit on the number of terms a president can serve. But this post is about the legislature.

If a senator/congressman is doing a great job, there is no reason why that person should be "fired." I think someone suggested that they could run again after the in between term, however, it is still a firing without cause. Business does not run like that and if it did, there would be chaos and as Loose pointed out, would create a lame duck CEO. I know, goverment and corporations are not the same, however, how many times have people said that government would be more efficient if it ran more like a business?

Besides interfering with my right to vote (and no Loose, just because I can write them in does not count, the person would not campaign and some states would not allow the person into the primaries) term limits are not good. A fresh face is not reason enough to kick out a successful person doing a successful job. Sure there are some lousy long term legislators, but there are also lousy "fresh" legislators.

However, if the majority votes for "limits" then I will abide it as the vote has proverbially spoken.

The vote though will not change my mind. Would be interested with any more reasons as to why term limits are good.

[Doniston]

Surprise surprise, By my calculaions (unless I have missed someone) we have unanimous agreement on the acceptability of term limits now what about the terms.???

[Yurt]

Surprise surprise, By my calculaions (unless I have missed someone) we have unanimous agreement on the acceptability of term limits now what about the terms.???

Uh.......... :poke:

[loosecannon]

The vote though will not change my mind. Would be interested with any more reasons as to why term limits are good.

Overview of effects:

One term only: lame ducks, no more lobbyists in DC, No accountability, inexperience

multiple terms with a cap: not as many lame ducks, more lobbyists, more political manuevering, longer careers as reps, better grasp of the job, some accountability

No limits: lotsa lobbyists, lotsa political experience and manuevering, lotsa accountability, no lame ducks. Lotsa lobbyists. And Lotsa lobbyists in DC.

Did I mention lobbyists?

All three ideas are heavily compromised. It really is a matter of choosing your poison.

[Mr. P]

Overview of effects:

One term only: lame ducks, no more lobbyists in DC, No accountability, inexperience

multiple terms with a cap: not as many lame ducks, more lobbyists, more political manuevering, longer careers as reps, better grasp of the job, some accountability

No limits: lotsa lobbyists, lotsa political experience and manuevering, lotsa accountability, no lame ducks. Lotsa lobbyists. And Lotsa lobbyists in DC.

Did I mention lobbyists?

All three ideas are heavily compromised. It really is a matter of choosing your poison.

Poison, interesting. Would you agree that many that go to D.C. have the best of intentions and term limits are to prevent "THEM" from being poisoned?

[5stringJeff]

Overview of effects:

One term only: lame ducks, no more lobbyists in DC, No accountability, inexperience

multiple terms with a cap: not as many lame ducks, more lobbyists, more political manuevering, longer careers as reps, better grasp of the job, some accountability

No limits: lotsa lobbyists, lotsa political experience and manuevering, lotsa accountability, no lame ducks. Lotsa lobbyists. And Lotsa lobbyists in DC.

Did I mention lobbyists?

All three ideas are heavily compromised. It really is a matter of choosing your poison.

I don't buy the idea that one-term politicians would be immune from the croons of lobbyists. If anything, with no accountability to the voters, they'd have even more incentive to "sell out" to lobbyists.

[Yurt]

I don't buy the idea that one-term politicians would be immune from the croons of lobbyists. If anything, with no accountability to the voters, they'd have even more incentive to "sell out" to lobbyists.

Imagine... the last term.... no one can vote for you.....

Accountability?

[Yurt]

Poison, interesting. Would you agree that many that go to D.C. have the best of intentions and term limits are to prevent "THEM" from being poisoned?

So it is only "LIMITS" that can prevent "them" from being poisoned? So if we legislate their terms, their moral compass...........

[Mr. P]

So it is only "LIMITS" that can prevent "them" from being poisoned? So if we legislate their terms, their moral compass...........

It would help. But it not about 'their" morals, it's more what crap the are exposed to and eventually succumb to.

[loosecannon]

Poison, interesting. Would you agree that many that go to D.C. have the best of intentions and term limits are to prevent "THEM" from being poisoned?

:laugh2: :laugh2:

[loosecannon]

I don't buy the idea that one-term politicians would be immune from the croons of lobbyists. If anything, with no accountability to the voters, they'd have even more incentive to "sell out" to lobbyists.


But the lobbyists wouldn't be in DC, and once the rep was elected they would be beholden to neither lobbyists or the electirate.

[Mr. P]

:laugh2: :laugh2:

Guess not. Butt-Head! :slap:

[Yurt]

It would help. But it not about 'their" morals, it's more what crap the are exposed to and eventually succumb to.

So you are prejudging? A wee bit surprised Mr. P. Given your hands off view of the government. Help me out here, your post seems to read:

limits "would" help...

not their morals, but this ethereal "crap"

So according to you, unless we place limits on our citizen's right to vote, we will inevitably end up with crap.

Shouldn't that be up to the voters at the time to decide?

Or should it be pre-determined that our elective reps will in fact screw up?

[Doniston]

So we had a real consensus that just went to pot.

[loosecannon]

Guess not. Butt-Head! :slap:

No I think you were right. But who cares if the congress critters lose their moral virginity. It is all about we the people.

I think it is true that power corrupts, and therefore nobody should be trusted with it. At least no more than is neccesary.

"Nobody's life, liberty or property are safe when Congress is in session "

[5stringJeff]

Imagine... the last term.... no one can vote for you.....

Accountability?

Ask that of President Bush now.

[5stringJeff]

But the lobbyists wouldn't be in DC, and once the rep was elected they would be beholden to neither lobbyists or the electirate.

I disagree. Lobbyists are always working to push their agendas, and they'd certainly be in DC looking for a few naive one-term representatives to get their bills passed.

[loosecannon]

I disagree. Lobbyists are always working to push their agendas, and they'd certainly be in DC looking for a few naive one-term representatives to get their bills passed.

But they would have no clout. Lobbyists trade campaign funding promises for legislative promises.

Without the ability to be re elected lobbyists would just be noise makers.

[5stringJeff]

But they would have no clout. Lobbyists trade campaign funding promises for legislative promises.

Without the ability to be re elected lobbyists would just be noise makers.

Their clout would be reduced. But a lobbyist could always promise to fund their successor's campaign if the reprsentative votes a certain way.

[Mr. P]

So you are prejudging? A wee bit surprised Mr. P. Given your hands off view of the government. Help me out here, your post seems to read:

limits "would" help...

not their morals, but this ethereal "crap"

So according to you, unless we place limits on our citizen's right to vote, we will inevitably end up with crap.

Shouldn't that be up to the voters at the time to decide?

Or should it be pre-determined that our elective reps will in fact screw up?

Man, what is it with you an this 'right" to vote crap? Term limits DO NOT affect your right to vote.

[loosecannon]

Their clout would be reduced. But a lobbyist could always promise to fund their successor's campaign if the reprsentative votes a certain way.

OK but that appeal to selfishness sounds lame. It could be realized. But it sounds specious.

[Yurt]

Ask that of President Bush now.

I asked you...

[Yurt]

No I think you were right. But who cares if the congress critters lose their moral virginity. It is all about we the people.

I think it is true that power corrupts, and therefore nobody should be trusted with it. At least no more than is neccesary.

"Nobody's life, liberty or property are safe when Congress is in session "

Who chooses? Who sets the terms? And the statement is contradictory, for if no one can be trusted with "it", then the "least" should not be considered.


How bout those term limits?

[Yurt]

Man, what is it with you an this 'right" to vote crap? Term limits DO NOT affect your right to vote.

So you say. Please explain. I did not know my right to vote was crap. How do they NOT affect my right?



So you are prejudging? A wee bit surprised Mr. P. Given your hands off view of the government. Help me out here, your post seems to read:

limits "would" help...

not their morals, but this ethereal "crap"

So according to you, unless we place limits on our citizen's right to vote, we will inevitably end up with crap.

Shouldn't that be up to the voters at the time to decide?

Or should it be pre-determined that our elective reps will in fact screw up?

Care to answer the post? You completely ignored the questions. If we are to reach consensus, it would help if all questions were fully answered.

[Mr. P]

So you say. Please explain. I did not know my right to vote was crap. How do they NOT affect my right?




Care to answer the post? You completely ignored the questions. If we are to reach consensus, it would help if all questions were fully answered.

Actually no..it's a waste of time. The thread is about limits on elected officials not your idea that your right to vote being taken away.

[jimnyc]

If it were up to me, I'd like easier ways to get rid of crappy electives. I'd rather shorter terms as well as term limits, giving us a chance to "fire" them if they don't perform. But I also agree about learning the ropes, and the "lame duck" issue. So, for me, setting appropriate term limits is the lesser of the evils.

We'll sometimes see a politician, who if serves his entire career there, would do a great deal of good for the people. Then we'll see some that only have personal agendas. Some that should be tossed quickly and others that will fit the mold of a 10-20yr career. That's why I think appropriate term limits equals everything out the best. I'd have pushed for shorter limits but I believe Jeff has made some good points in favor of career politicians.

[loosecannon]

Their clout would be reduced. But a lobbyist could always promise to fund their successor's campaign if the reprsentative votes a certain way.

OK after reconsidering your post Jeff i think you have a good point.

Single terms would only cause lobbyists to invent whole new means of influence peddling and some old ones like "here's cash".

Which kinda sucks most of the benefit outta term limits.

I do believe that career politicians are not desirable. And Jimmy's comment about making it easirer, much easier, to recall candidates makes the most sense of all.

I don't know if shorter terms would help cuz that strikes directly into the learning curve argument.

[Mr. P]

Well, in addition to limits maybe we could add law that says it's illegal to lobby to anyone in congress. It (lobbies) really does throw a wrench in the political process.

Another subject for another experiment.

[TheSage]

Hey yurt, is limiting a president to two terms an infringement on your right to vote?

[loosecannon]

Well, in addition to limits maybe we could add law that says it's illegal to lobby to anyone in congress. It (lobbies) really does throw a wrench in the political process.

Another subject for another experiment.


I think it is a much more important topic.

If my facts are right the argument for lobbyists falls along free speech lines. Which is utter horseshit.

[Yurt]

Aren't elections essentially "term" limits? At the elections, voters decide whether to reelect the person or not. This gives the voters more power, instead of having that power of choice taken away by mandated term limits.

I understand that people don't want corrupt politicians, but the corruption will still be there with or without limits. And with limits, we will undoubtedly have more inexperienced politicians.


Sage:

Yes, there should be no limits. The elections are the "limits".

[5stringJeff]

@ Loosecannon, jim, Mr. P: I'm glad to see I still have a few persuasive skillz! :D I believe my last proposal was 2 terms (12 yrs) for senators, 5 terms (10 yrs) in the House. Does that sound agreeable?

@ Yurt: Elections don't work as term limits. Let's take the example of Jim McDermott, from WA's 7th District, which is heavily, heavily Democrat.
The Dems will not run a challenger against McDermott; he toes the party line, and they want to keep the seat. So no Democrat will run against him. No Republican can run in the district and win because of the way the district is drawn. So essentially, the seat is McDermott's as long as he wants it, because the voters in the district will always vote for the Democrat over the Republican. and the Dem Party won't boot him. The seat won't change hands until McDermott steps down, at which point another Democrat will win the seat, and hold it until his retirement... until Christ returns, that seat will be held by a Dem.
Term limits may not give both parties a chance, but it will ensure that "fresh blood" gets into the House from time to time. If the voters like McDermott so much, he's got many other offices to run for: Senator, state house, state senator, governor, etc. etc.

[loosecannon]

@ Loosecannon, jim, Mr. P: I'm glad to see I still have a few persuasive skillz! :D I believe my last proposal was 2 terms (12 yrs) for senators, 5 terms (10 yrs) in the House. Does that sound agreeable?



I am becoming disillusioned with term limits. There appears to be no compromise that is worth a shit. But that said I will hold out for the lowest number of terms we can all agree to.

5 terms is generally 20 years in the house fwiw.

[loosecannon]

Gunny brought up another point in another thread.

Campaigns now begin either immediately upon being sworn in, or at least a few years prior to the next election.

Lame ducks don't campaign which has a down side, but also an upside.

They still have time to do their jobs.

(can we sneak provisions into this bill that make it a criminal offense to vote along party lines? And abolishes party caucuses? And divides leadership positions according to seniority or some other measure other than majority party rule?)

[5stringJeff]

Gunny brought up another point in another thread.

Campaigns now begin either immediately upon being sworn in, or at least a few years prior to the next election.

Lame ducks don't campaign which has a down side, but also an upside.

They still have time to do their jobs.

(can we sneak provisions into this bill that make it a criminal offense to vote along party lines? And abolishes party caucuses? And divides leadership positions according to seniority or some other measure other than majority party rule?)

Totally new subject for a new thread.

[5stringJeff]

I am becoming disillusioned with term limits. There appears to be no compromise that is worth a shit. But that said I will hold out for the lowest number of terms we can all agree to.

5 terms is generally 20 years in the house fwiw.

One term in the House is two years:


The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States

[Mr. P]

I am becoming disillusioned with term limits. There appears to be no compromise that is worth a shit. But that said I will hold out for the lowest number of terms we can all agree to.

5 terms is generally 20 years in the house fwiw.

I think it's only two year terms for the house.

[Yurt]

@ Loosecannon, jim, Mr. P: I'm glad to see I still have a few persuasive skillz! :D I believe my last proposal was 2 terms (12 yrs) for senators, 5 terms (10 yrs) in the House. Does that sound agreeable?

@ Yurt: Elections don't work as term limits. Let's take the example of Jim McDermott, from WA's 7th District, which is heavily, heavily Democrat.
The Dems will not run a challenger against McDermott; he toes the party line, and they want to keep the seat. So no Democrat will run against him. No Republican can run in the district and win because of the way the district is drawn. So essentially, the seat is McDermott's as long as he wants it, because the voters in the district will always vote for the Democrat over the Republican. and the Dem Party won't boot him. The seat won't change hands until McDermott steps down, at which point another Democrat will win the seat, and hold it until his retirement... until Christ returns, that seat will be held by a Dem.
Term limits may not give both parties a chance, but it will ensure that "fresh blood" gets into the House from time to time. If the voters like McDermott so much, he's got many other offices to run for: Senator, state house, state senator, governor, etc. etc.


So the problem is not really the terms, it is the way the district is drawn. IMO, term limits would do nothing more than change the face, if they always vote dem, then it will simply be a new face. If the voters don't like the person, they can always not vote them back in, thus limiting the term. If the voters are going to be sheeple, then term limits only change the face and really lessen incentive for the politician because he/she is limited in time. I also think it will lessen the integrity of the those running (not saying great now) because less people will want to run if they know they will be limited.

A vote should not be tampered with, IMHO.

[loosecannon]

I also think it will lessen the integrity of the those running (not saying great now) because less people will want to run if they know they will be limited.



I doubt people who want to run will be detered by a 12 year cap on senators and a 10 year cap on reps.

But the quality control issue you mentioned.... is it possible to get a worse grade of reps?

I mean it ain't workin now.

[Yurt]

I doubt people who want to run will be detered by a 12 year cap on senators and a 10 year cap on reps.

But the quality control issue you mentioned.... is it possible to get a worse grade of reps?

I mean it ain't workin now.

Sure it is, I don't think we have the bottom of the barrel, not the greatest, but not the bottom. I am not saying term limits "will" make it worse, I just believe it less people will want to run.

I am interested in anyone has imperical or actual evidence of term limits accomplishing their goal?

[loosecannon]

I am interested in anyone has imperical or actual evidence of term limits accomplishing their goal?

70% of the nation will be delighted that Bush only served 8 years.

And 66% wish Clinton had served 16 years.

Satisfied?

[5stringJeff]

70% of the nation will be delighted that Bush only served 8 years.

And 66% wish Clinton had served 16 years.

Satisfied?

In the same manner, 70% of the nation was delighted that Clinton could only serve 8 years.

And Yurt, that's the only empirical evidence there really is. I know of nowhere else in America where term limits are in effect.

[Yurt]

In the same manner, 70% of the nation was delighted that Clinton could only serve 8 years.

And Yurt, that's the only empirical evidence there really is. I know of nowhere else in America where term limits are in effect.

tx :)

[loosecannon]

In the same manner, 70% of the nation was delighted that Clinton could only serve 8 years.



Hardly. As a republican woman once sed to me. "I would give GWB a blowjob on the capitol steps at high noon if things would be like they were when Clinton was president".

He left office with a 66% approval rating compared to 32% for Bush so far.